The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[Jaaye]

Luther the man is quite different from Luther the (manufactured) legend. It is both wise and beneficial to read his own writings, in his own words — and not what someone else has attributed to him. I found this pamphlet that quotes him quite informative as it directly quotes him on a number of his doctrinal issues … with the references attributed and sourced.
Luther Rejects the Authority of the Pope pg 9-13
Luther Admits the Authority of the Devil pg 13-19
Luther Proclaims his own Authority and Infallibility pg 19-20
Luther Acts with Authority and Infallibility pg 21-34
Luther’s Intolerance to Those Who Refuse to Submit to His Authority and Infallibility pgs 34-40
Political Results of Luther’s Teaching pg 44-50
Moral Results of Luther’s Teaching pg 50-57

https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Luthers%20Own%20Statements.pdf

 

[Jaaye]

Of course it’s Luther’s own words, it is what he published … and the published works are referenced. The “catholic commentary” doesn’t change what he wrote and published. Everyone has the opportunity to supply their own commentary to what he wrote… feel free to weigh in with your observations:

• of his conversation w/the devil where the devil tells him he approves of Luther getting rid of private masses, having a doctrine on faith alone and eliminating devotion to Mary and the saints; Hellloooo most people finding themselves in a conversation with the Devil would consider that a red flag … apparently no so for Luther…he writes about it for 22 pages and then also publishes it.
• or the upwards of 100,000 peasants killed in the peasant war his doctrines helped create and then writes a polemic treatise on the how the peasants should be hunted down and killed by the nobles without mercy, which they were.
• or when he advises a german prince to commit bigamy, but tells him to lie about it?
• or his published treatise espousing hatred for the Jews that morphed into a 7-point playbook for the Nazi’s Krystallnacht to hunt them down, steal their property, burn their synagogues and rid Germany of their presence?
• or his own musings in his later years where he observes and writes that the outcomes of his doctrine have bitter fruit: contempt for the word of God, little esteem for the Eucharist, lack of charitable contributions, and contributions to the church; neglect of the poor and sick; increase in drunkeness and suicides and an increase in immorality?

None of these are one-off statements…they are multiple statements over a period of time. And yes, I think they are worth examining.

 

[2towers]

Please. Do you think Catholics, and more importantly the secular tribunals were the only ones who killed anyone? Catholics got burned all over by Protestant tribunals all over the place. Places like England for example.

As is usual with human beings, there is enough blood on both sides to go around.

 

[JonNC]

Yes the commentary does. It slants what he says, by editing and providing a"context".

 

[JonNC]

or when he advises a german prince to commit bigamy, but tells him to lie about it?

This is exactly what I mean. I suggest you provide the context. The whole story. On this and the rest.

or his published treatise espousing hatred for the Jews that morphed into a 7-point playbook for the Nazi’s Krystallnacht to hunt them down, steal their property, burn their synagogues and rid Germany of their presence?

Provide the context, that anti Judaism was rampant in the Church. Ask Johan Eck. Want some quotes. Luther learned it from some “great” Catholics.
An excuse? No. But if you’re going to throw stones from your glass house, expect collateral damage.

And yes, I think they are worth examining.

I think they are , too, in light of era, but a polemic such as this is no more helpful than some of the whitewashing he gets from ardent supporters

 

[Mark121359]

It’s kind of hard to imagine so many in the Catholic Church hierarchy singing the praises of this man…with a stamp to honor him to boot!

Who Was the Real Martin Luther?

A biographical sketch of the spark that lit the Reformation.

www.ncregister.com

 

[BoomerangToo]

Provide the context, that anti Judaism was rampant in the Church. Ask Johan Eck. Want some quotes. Luther learned it from some “great” Catholics.

An excuse? No. But if you’re going to throw stones from your glass house, expect collateral damage.

Yes is was rampant in the Catholic Church. But if Luther is to be regarded as a true reformer, he should have had a reformed attitude towards Jews. Instead, his attitude towards them was horrible, even advocating killing them and burning their homes. Some “Reformation” that was!

Luther had his issues. I think he sounds mentally unstable. In a previous post, which was deleted, I truthfully stated that Luther wrote many of his insults to his enemies using scatological terms. Gross and childish.

 

[JonNC]

Yes is was rampant in the Catholic Church. But if Luther is to be regarded as a true reformer, he should have had a reformed attitude towards Jews. Instead, his attitude towards them was horrible, even advocating killing them and burning their homes. Some “Reformation” that was!

Like I said, not an excuse. But I’m impressed with your willingness to admit that the Church as a whole was so morally bankrupt on this issue as to need a reformer. Despite Luther’s early writings in defense of the Jews, he fails miserably to lead on the issue in the end.

http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resour...e-history-of-the-relationship/272-luther-1523

I’m more concerned with the misrepresentation of Luther’s anti-Judaism as anti-semitism. The bigotry of the time was religious. Hitler’s was racial. Hitler may have used Luther’s words to his advantage (tyrants often do that), but they are entirely different. Blaming Luther for Krystallnacht is flatly polemical.

And let’s be clear, Luther and others were accused of being Judaizers by Catholic opponents because of their defense of the Jews.

An Unusual Relationship

Itis generally accepted that Jews and evangelical Christians have little incommon. Yet special alliances developedbetween the two groups in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Evangelicalsviewed Jews as both the rightful heirs of Israel and as a group who failed torecognize their true...

books.google.com

Neither side has room to point fingers

 

[JonNC]

It’s kind of hard to imagine so many in the Catholic Church hierarchy singing the praises of this man…with a stamp to honor him to boot!

Hmmm. Maybe the hierarchy is busy doing the hard work in finding the truth about the man and his time, unlike some apologists who are far too busy with polemics

 

[BoomerangToo]

Like I said, not an excuse. But I’m impressed with your willingness to admit that the Church as a whole was so morally bankrupt on this issue as to need a reformer. Despite Luther’s early writings in defense of the Jews, he fails miserably to lead on the issue in the end.

Yes, of course. I know there had to have been an unbelievable amount of corruption among the prelates of the Church. They had unlimited power and extreme wealth. That is a bad, bad combination! People were buying their way into the bishopric, priests were appointed by family cronies, with not even a basic understanding of the priesthood they were expected to uphold. They regarded the priesthood as a career move, a path to wealth, rather than a vocation to serve God and His people. They stole from the coffers and lined their own pockets while they denied mercy to others. Oh yeah, I get it.

I do think the Church needed a kick in the butt and Luther was the one who did it. The counter-reformation that came out of it was beneficial for the Catholic Church. It made them straighten up their act, so to speak. A lot of good things for Catholics came out of the Reformation like better priestly formation, an official Catechism, bibles in the vernacular, an end to the exchange of money for indulgences (which was just begging for abuse!). Although something good did come out of that money - the building of St. Peter’s Basilica, the grandest church in all Christendom and a real Wonder, with a capital “W”.

The bad, though, is really bad. A lot of deaths, wars, bad feelings and false teachings that continue to this day. Christendom is like a family who are no longer on speaking terms with one another, and that is not good. United we stand, divided we fall. We have many common enemies: militant atheism, apathy, and Islam. We would be better equipped to fight these if all Christendom came together.

 

[JonNC]

The bad, though, is really bad. A lot of deaths, wars, bad feelings and false teachings that continue to this day. Christendom is like a family who are no longer on speaking terms with one another, and that is not good. United we stand, divided we fall. We have many common enemies: militant atheism, apathy, and Islam. We would be better equipped to fight these if all Christendom came together.

Not much to disagree with. We can see the resistance to working together on this forum and others. And yet Christ calls us to unity unity can be as small as working together against abortion, or as large as full communion , with plateaus along the way.

 

[BoomerangToo]

Have you ever seen the “Lutheran Insulter”? It’s hilarious. I gotta admit, Luther was a master insulter. Sometimes I use these quotes. I can’t make this stuff up.

Lutheran Insulter?

 

[De_Maria]

Not much to disagree with. We can see the resistance to working together on this forum and others. And yet Christ calls us to unity unity can be as small as working together against abortion, or as large as full communion , with plateaus along the way.

On the contrary, working together in truth, is fine.

But manufacturing a new history, that’s another thing.

For example, Jon, you’re criticizing all the evidence against Luther. But you provide nothing that proves differently. The fact that some Catholics shared Luther’s bias against Jews, doesn’t excuse the fact that Luther held those biases. All you do is confirm his errors and then claim we’re wrong for pointing them out.

Now, if you can prove that Luther didn’t say those things “in his own words”, that’s a different story. But neither you nor anyone, has proven such a thing. All those on your side of this argument, merely claim that apoloigists made things up to pile upon poor old Luther.

 

[JonNC]

For example, Jon, you’re criticizing all the evidence against Luther. But you provide nothing that proves differently. The fact that some Catholics shared Luther’s bias against Jews, doesn’t excuse the fact that Luther held those biases. All you do is confirm his errors and then claim we’re wrong for pointing them out.

Actually, I didn’t. I said that the polemical document provided earlier was not as prefaced by the poster, as simply Luther’s words.
Where Luther is to be criticized, I will criticize him. Where he is to be praised, I will praise him. Are you willing to do the same for people like Eck? New Advent won’t. They fail to mention his anti-Judaism writings (I’m sure the authors knew about them).

Luther was bombastic, at times crude and obnoxious. He was wrong on numerous points of theology, from my perspective.

 

[JonNC]

Now, if you can prove that Luther didn’t say those things “in his own words”, that’s a different story. But neither you nor anyone, has proven such a thing. All those on your side of this argument, merely claim that apoloigists made things up to pile upon poor old Luther.

What polemicists do is spin and misrepresent what was written. That happens to Catholics from this side of the Tiber, too.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s an example.
Luther begins his commentary on James thus:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book,

Obviously, Luther loves James. He praised it. He said so right there. I didn’t change his words. Read them for yourself.

The problem is that’s not the entire story. I just omitted some of it to support a point of view.

The polemical document in a number of places is just as dishonest as this.

 

[De_Maria]

Actually, I didn’t. I said that the polemical document provided earlier was not as prefaced by the poster, as simply Luther’s words.

I know what you said. But you made it sound as though, therefore, it was not to be trusted.

Where Luther is to be criticized, I will criticize him. Where he is to be praised, I will praise him.

Let’s hear it.

Are you willing to do the same for people like Eck?

Who’s interested in Eck? You are apparently the only one. Consider the difference between the two men. Eck wasn’t the cause of a revolution that gutted the Church.

New Advent won’t. They fail to mention his anti-Judaism writings (I’m sure the authors knew about them).

[/QUOTE]
But Eck’s existence does not justify Luther’s errors. Nor is this the New Advent site. So, why are you mentioning him? It’s as I said, you seek to justify Luther by claiming that others also held his errors. But that is false logic.

Luther was bombastic, at times crude and obnoxious. He was wrong on numerous points of theology, from my perspective.

From everyone’s perspective. That’s why we find it incredible that there is now a stamp printed in his honor.

What polemicists do is spin and misrepresent what was written. That happens to Catholics from this side of the Tiber, too.

Sure it does. But the fact remains that Luther gave his enemies too much ammo. He literally gave everyone the rope with which to hang him on his own gibbet.

Which polemicist spun these words?

If the wife is unwilling, bring on the maid!
Sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more.
I would rather commit a nice, big, juicy sin, just to prove to Satan that I’m not afraid of him.
Go ahead, get another wife. Just make sure to keep it a secret.

And there are so many other unbelievably immoral things that he said and did, that it makes one’s head spin. There is only one person to blame for this. Luther. Not Eck. Not the Pope. Not anyone but, Luther.

 

[JonNC]

Who’s interested in Eck? You are apparently the only one. Consider the difference between the two men. Eck wasn’t the cause of a revolution that gutted the Church.

Curious comment. Someone who was considered one of the great theologians of that time. Guess it’s okay for him to write similarly bigoted things. We’ll just ignore them because we really want to target Luther.

Wow!

 

[JonNC]

But the fact remains that Luther gave his enemies too much ammo.

That he did. So, why find it necessary to misrepresent what he said like the polemical document does?

And there are so many other unbelievably immoral things that he said and did, that it makes one’s head spin. There is only one person to blame for this. Luther. Not Eck. Not the Pope. Not anyone but, Luther.

No one does things in a vacuum. Luther is responsible for his own words, but not on his own responsible for the atmosphere where they take place.

 

[JonNC]

If the wife is unwilling, bring on the maid!

Sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more.

I would rather commit a nice, big, juicy sin, just to prove to Satan that I’m not afraid of him.

Go ahead, get another wife. Just make sure to keep it a secret.

How do you know he wasn’t being sarcastic? Maybe hyperbolic?
What’s the context of the comment?

In a letter addressed to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526, Luther says: "Your first question: Whether person may have more than one wife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christian liberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that a Christian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that he can render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith and conscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty that profits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvement which his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, who says: ‘All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient’ (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your liberty does not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty.

Perspectives of Luther: Luther a Polygamist?

This will be the fifth installment of a response to a person calling himself “St. Thomas More” on the CARM discussion boards. His comments ...

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

Luther did not support bigamy, much less adultery. But not unlike the pope and Erasmus, he thought divorce was far worse.

Luther's "Teachings" on Bigamy and Catholic Double Standards

Discrediting the Reformation by indicting Martin Luther of teaching bigamy and polygamy lives on. Over on the Catholic Answers forum they s...

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com